Add Kubeflow TOC Charter

andreyvelich commented 9 months ago

This is initial draft for the Kubeflow TOC charter. Here is the Google doc for the same proposal for folks who want to review it and don't use GitHub regularly: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jskqTsqpuoC1Ed0HfitfSOk_k93RMYDkJPrIO7k0Veo/edit?usp=sharing

A few questions that I have:

Should we name it TOC or KTOC ? In this doc we name it as KTOC.
Giving the comment that @juliusvonkohout raised on the last community call, what do we think about electing 3 members on the first year and 2 more members in the second year ? Also, we can think about relaxing rules to be nominated (e.g. 25 contributions rather than 50).
I divided charter in 3 sections: Project direction and roadmap, Project releases, security, and stability, Project oversight and scope. Feel free to propose your ideas and comments.

I keep decision process and other parts of charter the same as for KSC.

We will start elections soon and @akgraner will provide updates.

/cc @kubeflow/wg-training-leads @kubeflow/wg-notebooks-leads @kubeflow/wg-pipeline-leads @kubeflow/wg-automl-leads @kubeflow/wg-manifests-leads @tenzen-y @kuizhiqing @kubeflow/release-team @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee @andreeamun @akgraner @tarilabs @bigsur0 @vara-bonthu @yuchaoran2011

google-oss-prow[bot] commented 9 months ago

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: andreyvelich

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files: - ~~[OWNERS](https://github.com/kubeflow/community/blob/master/OWNERS)~~ [andreyvelich] Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment

google-oss-prow[bot] commented 9 months ago

@andreyvelich: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: andreeamun, bigsur0, kubeflow/wg-notebooks-leads, kubeflow/wg-automl-leads, vara-bonthu, kubeflow/wg-manifests-leads, yuchaoran2011, kubeflow/wg-training-leads, kubeflow/wg-pipeline-leads, kubeflow/release-team, kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee.

Note that only kubeflow members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubeflow/community/pull/701): >This is initial draft for the Kubeflow TOC charter. >Here is the Google doc for the same proposal for folks who want to review it and don't use GitHub regularly: >https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jskqTsqpuoC1Ed0HfitfSOk_k93RMYDkJPrIO7k0Veo/edit?usp=sharing > >A few questions that I have: > >- Should we name it TOC or KTOC ? In [this doc](https://github.com/kubeflow/community/blob/master/proposals/GOVERNANCE.md#kubeflow-technical-oversight-committee-ktoc) we name it as KTOC. > >- Giving the comment that @juliusvonkohout raised on the last community call, what do we think about electing 3 members on the first year and 2 more members in the second year ? >Also, we can think about relaxing rules to be nominated (e.g. 25 contributions). > >- I divided charter in 3 sections: Project direction and roadmap, Project releases, security, and stability, Project oversight and scope. Feel free to propose your ideas and comments. > > >I keep decision process and other parts of charter the same as for KSC. > >We will start elections soon and @akgraner will provide update soon. > >/cc @kubeflow/wg-training-leads @kubeflow/wg-notebooks-leads @kubeflow/wg-pipeline-leads @kubeflow/wg-automl-leads @kubeflow/wg-manifests-leads @tenzen-y @kuizhiqing @kubeflow/release-team @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee @andreeamun @akgraner @tarilabs @bigsur0 @vara-bonthu @yuchaoran2011 Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.

andreyvelich commented 9 months ago

/hold for review

thesuperzapper commented 9 months ago

I don't quite understand the role of the proposed TOC as it compares to the Working Groups.

I have a few questions:

What actual power does TOC have?
Isn't the most logical membership of the TOC just the combined chairs of the Working Groups?
- (assuming we make it more clear how those chairs are to be appointed)
It is dangerous to have plain democracy for technical positions, we can mitigate this by doing one of the following:
- Requiring all candidates to be endorsed by the majority of working group chairs and the KSC (to ensure technical capability); or
- Have no election process and simply have the KSC appoint members.

For reference, here is the Kubernetes community governance document (NOTE: remember that Kubernetes SIG = Kubeflow Working Group, and we don't have an equivalent concept to Kubernetes Working Group).

Also, at least in the parlance of Kubernetes governance, the concept of a "committee" is an appointee group at the sole discretion of the steering committee.

johnugeorge commented 9 months ago

I don't quite understand the role of the proposed TOC as it compares to the Working Groups.

I have a few questions:

What actual power does TOC have?

Isn't the most logical membership of the TOC just the combined chairs of the Working Groups?

(assuming we make it more clear how those chairs are to be appointed)

It is dangerous to have plain democracy for technical positions, we can mitigate this by doing one of the following:

Requiring all candidates to be endorsed by the majority of working group chairs and the KSC (to ensure technical capability); or

Have no election process and simply have the KSC appoint members.

For reference, here is the Kubernetes community governance document (NOTE: remember that Kubernetes SIG = Kubeflow Working Group, and we don't have an equivalent concept to Kubernetes Working Group).

Also, at least in the parlance of Kubernetes governance, the concept of a "committee" is an appointee group at the sole discretion of the steering committee.

As TOC is a technical group, I like the idea of having TOC members coming from WG leads group where WG leads + KSC can vote.

juliusvonkohout commented 9 months ago

@andreyvelich Regarding "Also, we can think about relaxing rules to be nominated (e.g. 25 contributions rather than 50)." I do not recommend to do that. I would actually require at least a few merged PRs in addition.

andreyvelich commented 9 months ago

@thesuperzapper

What actual power does TOC have?

I think, one of the main purpose of TOC is helping WGs with cross-component features. That will help make Kubeflow components much less loosely coupled.

In terms of power, I don't think TOC should endorse WGs roadmaps, but they should provide their vision and collaborate together with all WGs. Also, TOC should be responsible for stable Kubeflow releases and conformance programs.

Isn't the most logical membership of the TOC just the combined chairs of the Working Groups?

We discussed this with @kubeflow/kubeflow-steering-committee during the last call. There are pros and cons for both approaches. For example, for the diversity it is better to have different folks on WG chairs and TOC. Let's discuss it during one of the upcoming Kubeflow Community calls.

andreyvelich commented 9 months ago

@andreyvelich Regarding "Also, we can think about relaxing rules to be nominated (e.g. 25 contributions rather than 50)." I do not recommend to do that. I would actually require at least a few merged PRs in addition.

That makes sense @juliusvonkohout. Let's discuss it tomorrow.

kubeflow / community

Add Kubeflow TOC Charter #701